Merged 8.8 quake in Sendai, Japan

[MattusMaximus]

Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/world/asia/13nuclear.html?_r=1&hp

No, please don't read that. The media is screwing up so many things with this I don't even know where to begin. If you're interested in factual information instead of sensationalism, there is a good thread going now in the Science subforum - I suggest you go there.

And, for the record, I think any comparisons to Chernobyl are highly overblown, for multiple reasons.

ETA: If you don't want to read the entire thread, here's a good, non-media-hyped breakdown of what's going on currently.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I hope somebody in the Candian Parliament gives CTV hell over that. Did they ever present an opposing viewpoint? Somehow I doubt it.....

You're confusing CTV with CBC. CBC is a "crown corporation", it is owned and operated by the government of Canada and is subject to parliamentary oversight. CTV is a private entity and can be as big a bunch of pinheads as they please.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Earlier Saturday, before the explosion, a Japanese nuclear safety panel said the radiation levels were 1,000 times above normal in a reactor control room at Daiichi

..yikes

Yes, that's true, but how dangerous is that? Are you taking into account exposure time? Do you realize that we get exposed to radiation all the time from a variety of sources?

None of these are things the media is talking about, because it wouldn't keep people on the edge of their seats.

ETA: Please take some time to read up on the science behind radiation sources, exposure & poisoning, folks (start here and here). Once you get a little informed, you will quickly see how the media is hyping the hell out of all this.

 

[Steve001]

8.9 quake upgraded to a 9.0

 

[gumboot]

Yeah, as I was saying in another thread, no matter how safe or well-designed you can build your defences and how big you can build your walls there can always be an earthquake or a tsunami which is bigger.

There has been lots of talk about "earthquake proofing" buildings in NZ following our quake. As I like to point out, even Cheyenne Mountain would be destroyed if hit by a big enough quake.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, that's true, but how dangerous is that? Are you taking into account exposure time? Do you realize that we get exposed to radiation all the time from a variety of sources?

None of these are things the media is talking about, because it wouldn't keep people on the edge of their seats.

So CNN finally gets Bill Nye the Science Guy back on to discuss the nuclear plant issue. But when Nye starts talking about hydrogen and helium breakdown products depending on the reactor and fuel types, the host gets horribly uncomfortable and stops him. Too complicated for the news audience, they might get bored with that level of information. Back to the trivial coverage.

Fortunately I've found something interesting on CSPAN's BookTV to watch for a while. I can't take anymore CNN right now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There has been lots of talk about "earthquake proofing" buildings in NZ following our quake. As I like to point out, even Cheyenne Mountain would be destroyed if hit by a big enough quake.

And yet most of the life lost in Christchurch was in only 2-3 buildings wasn't it? That suggests building construction is a worthwhile investment.

 

[gumboot]

Yes, that's true, but how dangerous is that? Are you taking into account exposure time? Do you realize that we get exposed to radiation all the time from a variety of sources?

None of these are things the media is talking about, because it wouldn't keep people on the edge of their seats.

I did read a couple of things that gave some indications, for example apparently the peak radiation reading was 882 micro sievert. The legal limit is 500.

Apparently the typical yearly background natural dose we all receive is about 2.4 mSv per year. It's getting close to 1Sv which is where radiation poisoning becomes an issue. 6-8Sv is getting into unsurvivable doses.

However the article didn't say if this was the radiation level inside the reactor control room or outside.

Another article I read yesterday (and take this with a grain of salt because I'm writing this from hazy memory) said that radiation levels recorded at the facility front gate were quite high, but in context a person would need to stand at the gate continually for 72 days or something before they'd take any harm from those levels of radiation.

It seems to me that the level at which radiation becomes a concern for authorities (based on acceptable levels, etc) is substantially lower than the level at which it actually becomes a serious health risk.

 

[MattusMaximus]

In an effort to educate people about radiation, since everyone's attention is focused on it now, I suggest you all take some time to calculate your own personal radiation dose. Once you go through that calculation and see all of the sources (both natural & artificial) that you're exposed to all the time, then you will see how much the media is hyping this stuff.

Knowledge is power, folks. Learn about radiation, and it will cease to be as scary as the media is making it sound. As I like to say: "Know nukes!"

 

[gumboot]

And yet most of the life lost in Christchurch was in only 2-3 buildings wasn't it? That suggests building construction is a worthwhile investment.

No. A large number of people died in the CTV and Pyne Gould buildings, but not the majority. Remember that thus far over 33% of the buildings in the CBD are expected to have to be torn down. It's not like two buildings collapsed and the rest are fine.

I certainly agree that building construction is a worthwhile investment (NZ's stringent building codes are being cited for relatively limited destruction in Christchurch). If it came across as if I was saying "You can't make a building 100% quake proof so you shouldn't try make it quake resistant at all" I didn't express myself very well.

I was just really saying that ultimately, while we can do a lot, we can't beat mother nature. The forces involved in these events are just beyond our ability to control. We'll do what we can, but ultimately as the population of the world grows and people congregate in increasingly dense cities, the toll from devastating disasters like this will just continue to grow.

There's a M8+ quake somewhere in the world every year. By sheer statistical probability some of them are going to be shallow enough and close enough to major urban centres that they cause widespread devastation and loss of human life. That's just a fact of life that we have to accept, and cope with as best we can.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In an effort to educate people about radiation, since everyone's attention is focused on it now, I suggest you all take some time to calculate your own personal radiation dose. Once you go through that calculation and see all of the sources (both natural & artificial) that you're exposed to all the time, then you will see how much the media is hyping this stuff.

Knowledge is power, folks. Learn about radiation, and it will cease to be as scary as the media is making it sound. As I like to say: "Know nukes!"

I get that MatMax, but you cannot deny what happened at Chernobyl. And it's hard to know what is going on here given the official reports don't seem the most trustworthy.

I'm not afraid of radiation any more than I'm afraid of driving my car, but one should not take the attitude hazards are nothing to worry about. One should take the attitude of reducing one's hazards including the hazard of stress from worry.

You are right that knowledge is power. But limiting one's radiation exposure is a worthwhile goal.

 

[MG1962]

I certainly agree that building construction is a worthwhile investment (NZ's stringent building codes are being cited for relatively limited destruction in Christchurch). If it came across as if I was saying "You can't make a building 100% quake proof so you shouldn't try make it quake resistant at all" I didn't express myself very well.

Well you can compare it to the Newcastle earthquake only a 5.6, but in a country with no earthquake code - 50,000 homes damaged, ultimately 300 of these were demolished. The death toll was much lower, but Newcastle is largely low density population, and the city center was quieter than usual due to a bus strike

 

[332nd]

[qimg]http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/6528/1299969885001.jpg[/qimg]

That kitty is already dead...

;_;

Great my wife saw that, went to see if there was any info on the cat & found out Cat Island is likely wiped out. (100 elderly people & 2-3 times as many cats) its gonna be a long night.

 

[gumboot]

Great my wife saw that, went to see if there was any info on the cat & found out Cat Island is likely wiped out.

My girlfriend saw the cat picture and had a fit at me for showing her it. I spent a good 20 minutes making up stuff about how the cat was having a great time. She wasn't convinced. I'll be sure to conceal all knowledge of Cat Island.

 

[Puppycow]

My girlfriend saw the cat picture and had a fit at me for showing her it. I spent a good 20 minutes making up stuff about how the cat was having a great time. She wasn't convinced. I'll be sure to conceal all knowledge of Cat Island.

It's odd how in these tragedies the plight of animals can be just as moving as that of the people.

The TV showed one evacuation center and in one corner was the most adorable white dog you've ever seen, just shivering with cold or perhaps fear or both. I can't stop thinking about that poor dog. He doesn't know what the hell just happened, but he's obviously really scared.

 

[George]

The last ditch stand failed miserably.

The back-up diesel generators that is. But how?


Wikipedia lists an impressive array of 'Safety Systems' for boiling water reactors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor_safety_systems

It's a pity there is no recommendation regarding the installation of a reliable power supply to run this fabulous show.

Mains failure diesel powered generators do exactly what they say on the can. They will start automatically and run until they are either switched off, run out of fuel, or its own very basic self protection system cuts in. That is: the contacts in the oil pressure switch or the coolant temp switch opens. Nothing else matters to a diesel engine.

This is all we ask of them and this is mostly how they perform.
The fact that the system in place didn't meet these basic requirements suggest somebody on the regulatory gravy train decided to improve things by installing various monitors and controls.

'I' suspect the gennys ran out of diesel. I hope for and expect some serious sword fallage with this one.

 

[quadraginta]

In an effort to educate people about radiation, since everyone's attention is focused on it now, I suggest you all take some time to calculate your own personal radiation dose. Once you go through that calculation and see all of the sources (both natural & artificial) that you're exposed to all the time, then you will see how much the media is hyping this stuff.

Knowledge is power, folks. Learn about radiation, and it will cease to be as scary as the media is making it sound. As I like to say: "Know nukes!"

The EPA calculator link states,

In the United States, the average person is exposed to an effective dose equivalent of approximately 620 mrem (whole-body exposure) per year from all sources (NCRP Report No.160).

Wiki's page on the Sievert^WP provides this conversion

1 microSeivert = 0.1 millirem (1 μSv = 0.1 mrem)

So 620 mrem = 6,200 μSv

Gumboot tells us ...

I did read a couple of things that gave some indications, for example apparently the peak radiation reading was 882 micro sievert. The legal limit is 500.

I'm not quite clear about how exposure duration or incidence is factored in to this, but from MM's link it would seem that a single x-ray at the doctor (40 mrem = 400 μSv) would approach the legal limit in Japan.

Gumboot's post continued ...

Apparently the typical yearly background natural dose we all receive is about 2.4 mSv per year. It's getting close to 1Sv which is where radiation poisoning becomes an issue. 6-8Sv is getting into unsurvivable doses.

1 mSv = 100 mrem, which would be 2.4 mSv = 240 mrem. There seems to be some discrepancy in these sources. Is it 620 or 240? Do we get irradiated a lot more in the States?

Am I missing something?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My girlfriend saw the cat picture and had a fit at me for showing her it. I spent a good 20 minutes making up stuff about how the cat was having a great time. She wasn't convinced. I'll be sure to conceal all knowledge of Cat Island.

Took me a while to find but it appears the island has plenty of elevation so while the little bay the old folks lived in may have been inundated, it could also have been spared because of the side of the island it was on. The Mar 12th satellite image isn't detailed enough to see the inlet which had the buildings, but the island itself looks similar in pre and post tsunami images.

Anyway, I think a lot of cats, given they were feral might be OK. Hopefully the elderly population on the island were as well. We tend to think of the elderly as being infirm, but forget they have the wisdom of their years. Maybe they know very well that a tsunami follows a quake. I'm going to think they were a bunch of smart old coots and headed up hill until I learn otherwise.

 

[qayak]

Let's see. Build a nuclear reactor in a major earthquake/tsunami zone without having the ability to shut it down should either, or both, of those two happen . . . great.

I wonder if other nuclear facilities around the world are taking notes?

 

[gumboot]

1 mSv = 100 mrem, which would be 2.4 mSv = 240 mrem. There seems to be some discrepancy in these sources. Is it 620 or 240? Do we get irradiated a lot more in the States?

Am I missing something?

Well, I used that website calculator, and although it applies obviously to the USA and I'm not in the USA, I got only ~300mrem of exposure, so it seems to be 2.4mSv is a plausible typical background exposure. The Wikipedia article does state that the actual exposure level varies quite a bit from place to place.

Also to note, in my post where I talk about the levels, I incorrectly confused micro Sv with mili Sv, so the peak radiation recorded at the plant is actually substantially lower than my post suggest, by a factor of 1000.